American Chemical Society says Chemical Industries Underestimated Embedded Chip Problemgreenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread |
From: www.sciencedaily.com Source: American Chemical Society www.acs.org 1-22-99 Chemical industry efforts to keep the so-called Y2K computer problem from shutting down safety controls may be further behind than previously thought -- particularly at smaller chemical companies around the nation -- according to a report in this week's issue of Chemical & Engineering News, newsmagazine of the world's largest scientific society, the American Chemical Society. The report quotes Gerald V. Poje, board member of the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSHIB), who notes that "one to three percent of some 50 billion embedded chips worldwide will be subject to Y2K problems and some 25 million mission critical systems may have problems." At chemical plants, such chips automate devices, (within chemical plants,) including the control pumps and valves that prevent spills and other hazardous accidents from occurring. Y2K consultants report that the small and medium sized chemical companies are at greatest risk, depending on their ability to spend enough time and resources to address the problem. Angela E. Summers, director of Premier Consulting and Engineering in LaMarque, Texas, says that a system using embedded chips could "fail dangerously." A safety system might not respond adequately, or it could "fail safely," she says, resulting in a costly shutdown and startup, but without incident. Experts have found that "even chemical companies that have actively addressed the Y2K problem may have underestimated its depth," according to the article in C. Consultants hired by Occidental Chemical found "10 times more systems with potential Y2K problems than the company's own engineers had found." At a recent CSHIB meeting in Washington, D.C., more than 50 experts from around the U.S. discussed possible solutions for the chemical industry's Y2K problem. One option that was discussed was to temporarily shut down computer systems at midnight on December 31st, 1999, and then restart them later, hoping systems would come back online without incident. Views of the CSHIB will be included in a report to a special Senate Y2K Committee later this month. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been given "no special authority to encourage companies to make Y2K investigations," according to Don Flattery, the EPA's Y2K project team coordinator. The agency has created a "tool kit" which provides advice to chemical companies and examples of other companies' approaches to the problem. "The CSHIB panel's consensus was that the country's focus should be on helping the smaller companies," but the help they get is more likely to come from the chemical industry rather than the U.S. government, according to the C article.
-- a (a@a.a), January 24, 1999
Damn. This is not good news from a previously "invisible" part of the economy. Think plastic - then subtract anything made from or using plastic (including foods, product wrapping and sterilization) or chemicals to make it, paint it, color it, or store it, or ship it. Or print the instructions to make it, print it, or ship with itThen wave bye-bye (no-buy-no-buy ?) for a little while until things can get reset and production resumes. Quality of product? Probably lousy. Depends too on quality and supply of recevied oil and petroleum output.
By the way, chemical plants are not easy to startup and shutdown either - you don't use "manual bypasses" on these guys - like people think you can on water systems or sewage plants.
-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), January 24, 1999.
This is not a good news evening. It seems that many industries are just beginning to realise the extent of the embedded controller problem. The great article on the Natural Gas industry(see Smoking Guns) on the thread before this is also sobering. Scratch that. Both these articles scare the hell out of me!
-- Mike Lang (webflier@erols.com), January 24, 1999.
Remember this link? Insurance company about factory Y2K process control problems?
http:// www.factorymutual.com/y2kintro.htm#bugAnd actual examples of problems ...
http:// www.factorymutual.com/y2kdamge.htmRobert, I think its getting to be entrepreneurial time. We need to build a Yourdonite still and get into manufacturing a chemical that makes sense, post Y2K. Think of it as headache relief medicine.
Diane
-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), January 25, 1999.
I went to the American Chemical Society website. Searches on 'embedded', 'chip', 'Y2K', and 'Year 2000' show nothing resembling the 'quote' above. Moreover, a search at Chemical and Engineering News on authors gives nothing on Gerald V. Poje. If you can't give a article originating fromwww.acs.org,
or from Chemical and Engineering News
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/index.html
I am going to consider this totally bogus. The only thing this could possibly be not covered by those searches would be a letter to the editor - which, of course, does not carry any weight and is not by any means considered to be anything but the opinion of the writer. Shucks, they publish letters about Creationism and Luddites - hardly their primary focus.
-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), January 25, 1999.
Its available via Science Daily's main page under the "click here for earlier stories", leading to the following URL:
Y 2K: Chip Failures May Thwart Industry Safety Controls
-- Brooks (brooksbie@hotmail.com), January 25, 1999.
Paul Davis: You can see Poje's smiling face at the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board webpage (http://www.csb.gov/about/who.htm), which is exactly where the article claims he is.Your slip is showing dumbass.
-- a (a@a.a), January 25, 1999.
Trust, analyze, and verify, A.A.Paul was correct in making sure that the story was traceable - granting that he didn't find the right sites doesn't invalidate his caution.
-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), January 25, 1999.
Chemical and Engineering News is online. Here is the URL for all their issues on the web.http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/cenmaster.cgi?back
I have hand searched the issues for Jan. 25, Jan. 18, and Jan 11. I simply can't any original article that reads like this. I even searched in the letters column - nothing. If you can find such a thing I will admit to having missed it at once.
I am sure Mr. Poje exists - but that is not proof he made these statements. ScienceDaily may have been the victims of a hoax. Now I would have a bone to pick over the 50 billion number - it is simply way too high - and is why I was looking for the original article. Would not be the first time I have disagreed with someone about a scientific article with inaccuracies - won't be the last either if the past is any indicator. But I can't do that unless I find the original article.
-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), January 25, 1999.
normalize
-- cross eyed (offto@the.side), January 25, 1999.
boy that really screwed things up
-- a (a@a.a), January 25, 1999.